Motor Mouth: Volkswagen scandal a major betrayal of trust

Two Volkswagen employees push a VW Passat into the new "Cold and Climate" centre at the Volkswagen plant in Wolfsburg. The German automaker admitted to rigging its diesel vehicles to pass U.S. emissions testing.

Jochen Luebke, Getty Images

I can’t remember an exposé of the automotive industry ever giving me less pleasure

It’s as cynical a deception as has ever been perpetuated in the automobile industry: Last Friday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made the shocking announcement that it had issued a Notice of Violation claiming 482,000 Volkswagen four-cylinder diesel-powered cars produced between 2009 and 2015 emitted more harmful nitrogen oxide emissions from their tailpipes than regulations allowed. And not just by some small margin that might be excused as a software error or the malfunction of emissions-reduction hardware, but by as much as 4,000 per cent — yes, 40 times — the legal limit. Yet, as outrageous as that transgression is, that’s not the truly egregious aspect of the accusation.

Emissions testing in the United States is laboratory based. Computers and rolling-road dynamometers automatically put the cars through an exacting series of tests that specify everything from duration to the speed and acceleration tested. The goal is that the tests be repeatable so that all cars, no matter where they were manufactured, are treated equally.

A Volkswagen Golf TDI diesel car undergoes an emissions inspection at a garage in Frankfurt am Main, eastern Germany, on September 21, 2015. Shares in German auto giant Volkswagen plummeted more than 20 percent after news emerged that nearly half a million of its diesel cars in the United States had been fitted with software that falsified emissions data.

It is that very repeatability, however, that is at the core of Volkswagen’s malfeasance. According to the EPA, Volkswagen programmed its cars’ computers so that, using speed, throttle and steering sensors, they could actually determine when they were being tested by an EPA-certified laboratory. In those specific conditions — and those conditions alone — they would comply with emissions standards. The rest of the time — in other words, in real-life driving — they spewed horrendous amounts of nitrogen oxide (NOx). The legal limit for the cars in question is 0.05 grams per mile. According to the EPA, the diesel-powered Volkswagens in question — Jettas, Beetles, Golfs, Passats and even the Audi A3, which shared the same 2.0-litre four-cylinder TDI engine — were pumping as much as 2.0 grams per mile of NOx out their tailpipes.

It’s a stunning accusation. After all, GM’s transgression (for which it just settled a US$900 million fine) was caused by a genuine mistake. Oh, the cover up was morally reprehensible but, like every automotive industry scandal I can remember, it was the result of an honest mistake that was (very) poorly rectified. If the EPA’s accusations prove accurate, however, Volkswagen’s transgression was the result of malice aforethought.

RELATED

It’s easy to understand Volkswagen’s motivation. In 2009, the amount of NOx emissions that diesel engines were allowed to emit was cut to less than half of what was allowed in Europe at the time. Volkswagen was virtually the only company making a serious effort at selling diesels in North America at the time and, upping the ante, VW not only promised that its 2009 TDI would meet the more stringent standards but would also be 40 per cent more powerful. At the time, Lindsay Brook, editor of Automotive Engineering International, said that Volkswagen’s then new high-pressure injection technology was a “night and day” improvement over the old. “Some are calling it [VW’s then re-engineered TDI] a major triumph, others a minor miracle.”

Of course, if the EPA’s allegations prove true, it’s small consolation to the other manufacturers of diesel engines who did comply with the regulations. Indeed, it has taken years for other marques to “catch up” with an advantage it now appears Volkswagen never had.

Worse yet, despite all the information we now have, so many disturbing questions remain. If the EPA’s accusations of deliberate tampering are true, how far up the management food chain did the approval process go? Unlike the GM ignition switch debacle, in which it was actually plausible that an upgrade to such a minor component could have been self contained, the software and hardware engineering required for such a “defeat device” on so many cars would require senior management approval. Indeed, it was only after the EPA and the California Air Resources Bureau threatened to withhold certification for the company’s 2016 vehicles that Volkswagen admitted it had designed and installed these “defeat devices” on its cars.

And where did this non-compliance stop? Are Volkswagen’s four-cylinder TDIs the only engines that fudged the regulations, or does the tampering extend to V6 and V8 turbodiesels used in the Volkswagen Group’s other divisions? Perhaps most importantly, is Volkswagen the only diesel manufacturer playing fast and loose with emissions reduction?

RELATED

Nor is the EPA fault-free in this debacle either. As it does with fuel economy testing, the EPA does not emission test all vehicles itself. The auto manufacturers actually perform the tests and then submit the data to the government agency that then, if it approves the documentation, generates a Certificate of Conformity. The EPA says it then audits between 15 and 20 per cent of certified vehicles at its facility in Ann Arbour, Michigan. Unfortunately, in this case it was not the EPA that caught the tampering but the West Virginia University’s Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions. The same lack of universal onsite testing is the reason that Ford (under pressure from advocacy groups) was forced to reduce the C-Max’s EPA rating from 47 mpg to 40. It would appear that the EPA either has to step up its random testing or, better yet, perform all the tests itself; trusting the automakers to self-certify would now seem to be an expediency we can ill afford.

A personal note from the author

I can’t remember an exposé of the automotive industry ever giving me less pleasure. I have long been a fan of diesel engines. Indeed, I still believe that the best short-term solution to consumers’ needs for performance and convenience while reducing emissions and fuel consumption would be a diesel/electric hybrid, the former offering superlative highway fuel economy and the latter urban parsimony. Ironically, as I write this I am testing an Audi A7 TDI which averaged 6.5 L/100 km on a recent trip to Ottawa while cruising at 130 km/h, incredible fuel economy for a car that weighs 1,975 kilograms and boasts exemplary performance. Diesel technology is struggling for a toe-hold here in North America. Let’s hope this setback doesn’t irreversibly tarnish the technology’s reputation.